Jump to content

Talk:Elliot Page

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Replace the word assigned with observed. The word assigned is incorrect as no one assigns a sex to a baby, like if a doctor assigned female to a baby with a penis, it wouldn’t make them a female. So observed female at birth is far more accurate as he was born female and female is the sex that was observed. 2601:647:8000:F5A0:C0E8:8EB1:6E91:8259 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of birth name

I have added Page's birth name, in line with MOS:DEADNAME and want to add some explanatory notes. Page was clearly notable under the name Ellen Philpotts-Page and was nominated for a Gemini Award (predecessor of the Canadian Screen Award for Best Performance in a Children’s or Youth Program or Series under this name -- and credited under this name. Sources for that include:

The birth name also appears in other news articles and books, identifying it as a birth name, both at the time the birth name was used professionally and after the name Ellen Page was used professionally (which was sometime before the 2002 nomination for the Young Artist Award), including:

  • Canadian Who's Who. Volume 45. Edited by Elizabeth Lumley. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.
  • Canadian Who's Who. Edited by Lynne N. Browne and Gwen Peroni. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.
  • Canadian Who's Who. Edited by Susan Charters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012.
  • The Canadian Encyclopedia: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/elliot-page

It's a clear case of notability under this name. Samp4ngeles (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all a clear case. One series credit and one award nomination do not establish notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers You seem to be misapplying WP:NACTOR. That applies to "whether a given topic warrants its own article." We're not talking about that here, as the page already exists. Even if you use WP:NACTOR as the standard for notability for using a birth name here, "Ellen Philpotts-Page" does in fact meet the requirement in WP:NACTOR: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." In Page's case, it was two significant credits under the birth name Ellen Philpotts-Page: the was for Pit Pony (film), which earned Gemini Awards. The second instance was for Pit Pony (TV series), in which Page personally received a Gemini Awards nomination -- one of only two such nominations for the series. Page's role was signficant in both series. I'm reversing your edit, but if you have a stronger or different rationale, please post it here. Samp4ngeles (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DEADNAME links the word "notable" to a notability guideline, so it's absolutely using it in its jargony Wikipedia sense. Page was billed something like 10th or so in the Pit Pony show credits (at least the pilot), and nominations (without winning) are a contributing but relatively non-determinative factor in notability. In the movie, he didn't make the opening credits. I don't think the NACTOR case is unreasonable, but it's not strong. Since there's a privacy interest at play, I would advocate for the same caution we generally take with all BLPs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The order of billing doesn't matter. See previous discussions on WP:NACTOR such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016, which point to credited roles in more than one production. But if you want to go down that route, IMDB lists Page as fifth for the film ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125458/fullcredits/ ) and four for the series ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159902/fullcredits ), having appeared in 29 episodes. Page's Maggie McLean character was a significant role, which led to the award nominations, which launched the acting career. Page also happens to have been the main photo on the poster for Pit Pony (film).
The privacy interest argument is a bit of a red herring, as the article has long mentioned both parents (Philpotts and Page). The Philpotts-Page name is also in many sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which discussion in that archive page are you referring to? On "red herring", agree to disagree, I guess. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a short WP:NACTOR discussion on that archive page, but I think it's clear that Page had very significant roles in both Pit Pony (film) and Pit Pony (TV series), and the pilot episode you refer to would be only marginally relevant.
With regard to privacy interests, Page is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and indeed there are a multitude of sources listing the birth name. Including it in this article would only be documenting what other WP:RS have already said. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper, want to make sure you're aware of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm aware, thanks for the heads up. I don't have a ton to add, beyond just seconding Firefangledfeathers, but I would say that, to the extent that anyone knows Elliot Page by his deadname, it's not the hyphenated one. This deadname is not at all useful in identifying the subject of the article to any reasonable hypothetical reader who might only know Eliot by his deadname, and essentially serves as trivia. In other words, it's not a "significant alternative name" (emphasis in the original) as specified in MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. Certainly it doesn't make sense to bump the deadname that might actually be useful to a reader to later in the lead sentence. Under other circumstances, it could definitely be reasonable to still include someone's birth name, even if they don't go by it, but here, given that there are also the privacy and deadname concerns at play, it seems to me to be a pretty obvious case to keep this out of the lead sentence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing things by suggesting this is a "significant alternative name." It's not -- it's a birth name, and it was significant/notable at the time. Even applying standards such as WP:NACTOR, the Philpotts-Page birth name was notable enough at the time. This isn't "trivia". Rather, it helps add clarity for people who might navigate to the article from other sources (including all the RS listed above). Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine, then let's take a look at MOS:BIRTHNAME, where we find: the birth name may be given in the lead as well, if relevant...Specific guidelines apply to living transgender and non-binary people. (emphasis mine) The explanatory footnote calls out privacy interests in their birth names, and while it says that in most cases, that privacy concern doesn't stop us from listing the birth name in the lead for living public figures, it indicates via wikilink that trans people are specifically not most cases. Your assertion that including it increases clarity beggars belief; one of your links is to the Internet Archive, and the TV Guide one is internally linked itself to an article titled Elliot Page. Your Canadian Encyclopedia link primarily identifies Elliot as, well, Elliot, and I'm guessing the Who's Who links also do not primarily identify him by his birth name, as they were all published 8 years or more after he stopped using it professionally. So, no, I do not find it remotely plausible that a reader might honestly come to this page from that name without any indication of one of the other names already in the lede. Moreover, it's not like it's hard to figure out "Philpotts-Page" is related to "Page". It doesn't provide any actual benefit to the reader, other than as trivia, and again, the privacy and deadname concerns outweigh the value of a piece of trivia, especially when placed in the lead sentence.
If you were trying to put this in the "early life" section, you might have a point. I would still disagree with that, but it would be defensible. This has no reason to be in the lead sentence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, if we included it, we'd get to the point where we're overloading the first sentence with alt names and should consider mentioning them later or in a footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper A reader could come to the article from a variety of sources, including something as simple as watching the film or or episodes and seeing the name in credits. And you do realize that TV Guide is a perennial RS, right? The Canadian Who's Who listings do have Philpotts-Page as a primary listing. And the Canadian Encyclopedia link lists "Elliot Page (born Ellen Philpotts-Page)." I'm having trouble following what WP guideline/policy you are trying to apply here. MOS:DEADNAME is just an essay, but even that is useful, as the birthname is in fact relevant as explained by the sources (and notability and reliability). "Overloading the first sentence with names" is not a policy/guideline. In fact, MOS:BIRTHNAME, MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, and MOS:NE explain how/why it is done, and Caitlyn Jenner's use of the William Bruce Jenner birthname is an excellent model for someone who was notable under birth name, went by another name that was more notable (Bruce Jenner), and then transitioned to another name. No need to fiddle with moving the information elsewhere, as @[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers] suggests. Samp4ngeles (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you say MOS:DEADNAME is just an essay; it's a guideline, just like the rest of the Manual of Style, and in fact is a section of the same exact page that the rest of your links go to. Speaking of, MOS:BIRTHNAME and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES are the same link, and it doesn't indicate that the birth name *has* to be included; only if it is relevant, and again, specifically carves out an exception for trans people. WP:NÉE is a bit stronger, but even then, it doesn't mandate the inclusion of the birth name. And again, my assertion is that there is tension between the two guidelines, and given that the argument for inclusion has value to the reader that is extremely tenuous at best, and the argument for omission has the privacy and deadnaming concerns that the guidelines specifically call out, the latter wins. And if you absolutely must have an alphabet-soup link for that, then consider the policy WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not understanding, but what is the deadnaming concern with mentioning his former surname? He didn't change it as part of his gender transition, and his actual deadname is listed right at the start of the article. You seem to be insinuating there is some kind of gender related issue with the name "Philpotts-Page" when that doesn't seem to be the case, it's just a birth name that he doesn't use professionally. XeCyranium (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does nobody understand how nonsensical the sentence, "He received critical acclaim for portraying the title role, a pregnant teenager, in Jason Reitman's film Juno (2007), and earned nominations for an Academy Award, two BAFTA Awards,..." is? I say this having previously been named Editor of the Week, an award that specifically stated that I was "recognized for Gender Studies". JezGrove (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an Editor of the Week, an award specifically for Gender Studies, no doubt you'll learn to manage. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
haha that's funny 101.119.127.141 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over half of male pregnancy is examples of it in TV, movies, etc. And obviously, character-roles need not have any relationship to the real-life nature of who plays the role. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McKay, John (20 September 2000). "CBC's DaVinci's Inquest tops Gemini nominations". Waterloo Region Record. p. E8.

Adding film premiere date

Close to You will have its New York Premiere at NewFest Pride on June 1, 2024. [1] Eternalshrugemoji (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

Why does the article retrofit past events with he and him when at the time it was she and her? You can't change the part. 101.119.117.21 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per wikipedia rules for those who are trans. Standard practice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from my talkpage a request by an IP who cannot edit here due to protection -- DMacks (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the following sentence at the Page article (which opens its paragraph, and is followed by two citations):

On November 9, 2017, it was announced that Page had been cast in the main role of Vanya/Viktor Hargreeves in the Netflix superhero series The Umbrella Academy.

Note, this reflects no proposed change to the wikilink destination; it is only a proposed change to its markup piping/presentation.

Justification: Having reviewed the sentence and its two supporting citations, one must conclude that the sentence is both historically inaccurate, and inccurate to its stated sources. The sources presented make no mention of the Viktor character, only the Vanya; thus, the current presentation confounds an early decision in the series with later developments in the series design and production. For historical accuracy, the article should report only what the citations report—that on that 2017 date, Page was cast in the role of Vanya (as the two citations provided indicate no perception on the part of the series writers/showrunner, in that moment, of the character evolving as it eventually would). Then, further on, as the role evolved, the second character name should be introduced, with that relevant date (with citations reporting that change in series design and related casting).

Note, no motivation with regard to gender issues should be perceived here. This edit is simply aimed at WP:VERIFY compliance, and the historical accuracy of the prose—that the WP article text says what the sources say, and accurately reflects the history of the series as it occurred. -- 98.193.42.97 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "...in the main role of Vanya (later Viktor) Hargreeves" might be a better formulation. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Readers may not be familiar with the history of the show so listing both names is better. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, as per discussion above. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elliot_Page&oldid=1255033648"